Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 3 Jul 2006 13:45:49 +0100 (BST)
From:      Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
To:        David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Updated fine-grain locking patch for UNIX domain sockets
Message-ID:  <20060703134429.P57091@fledge.watson.org>
In-Reply-To: <200607030837.04685.davidxu@freebsd.org>
References:  <20060630001142.Y67344@fledge.watson.org> <200607030837.04685.davidxu@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, David Xu wrote:

> I found 5% performance decrease on dual P4, maybe P4 is quite bad when doing 
> atomic operation. ;-) Thanks,

When I've measured, generally, yes, P4 performance has been abysmal for 
synchronization operations, both atomic operations and CPU-local interrupt 
disabling, etc.

I suspect rwlocks could use a bit of optimization in the contention case. 
I've not dug into the code, so I'm not clear how they compare with respect to 
adaptive behavior.

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060703134429.P57091>